CCGL9065: Our Response to Climate Change: HK2100

Fashion Design and Life Cycle of Stuff

Dr. Hongshan Guo and Class

Last Week’s Strategy: The Open Loop

Quick Callback

Last week’s strategy: The Open Loop

Start with something unresolved. The brain can’t let go.

Anyone try it? Did you open a loop in your first 10 seconds?

What happened?

Let’s Start With a Fact

An Inconvenient Truth on Hong Kong Fashion

The average Hong Konger throws away 30kg of textiles per year.

That’s 110,000 tonnes of clothing in landfills — annually.

Your closet probably contains clothes you haven’t worn in over a year. Some still have tags on.

Now let’s talk about the life cycle of stuff.

But First: A Test of Your Instincts

Quick Poll

Which is better for the environment?

  1. A Beyond Burger (plant-based)

  2. A chicken breast

Vote now.

The Answer Might Surprise You

A Beyond Burger produces approximately 3.5 kg CO₂e per kg.

A chicken breast produces approximately 4.5-6 kg CO₂e per kg.

So Beyond Burger wins… right?

Not so fast.

The Uncomfortable Details

Beyond Burger requires heavy processing — extrusion, isolation, flavoring.

A 2023 study found that when you account for full supply chain processing, some plant-based meats approach or exceed chicken’s footprint.

And chicken? It’s the lowest-emission meat by a wide margin — 5-10x lower than beef.

The point: “Plant-based” doesn’t automatically mean “green.” You have to check the actual numbers.

Sources: Poore & Nemecek (2018) Science; Saget et al. (2021) Nature Food; UC Davis LCA studies

Things You Think Are Green (But Aren’t)

Your Environmental Instincts Are Often Wrong

If your gut can be wrong about something as simple as a burger…

What else might you be wrong about?

Organic Cotton vs. Conventional Cotton

Assumption: Organic cotton is more sustainable.

Reality: Organic cotton uses up to 91% more water than conventional cotton in many regions, with 20-50% lower yields — meaning more land required.

Organic avoids pesticides (good), but trades one environmental problem for another.

Source: Textile Exchange Organic Cotton Market Report; Mekonnen & Hoekstra (2011) Water Footprint Network

“Recycling” Your Old Clothes

Assumption: Donating clothes = recycling = good.

Reality: Only about 10-15% of donated clothes are resold locally. Much of the rest is shipped to Ghana, Chile, and Kenya — where up to 40% ends up in landfills because the volume overwhelms local markets.

You’re not recycling. You’re exporting your guilt.

Source: OR Foundation (2022); ABC News “Dead White Man’s Clothes”; UNEP (2023)

The Cotton Tote Bag

Assumption: Reusable cotton bags are better than plastic.

Reality: A cotton tote must be used 131 times to have lower climate impact than a single disposable plastic bag.

An organic cotton tote? 20,000 times.

How many of you have used the same tote 131 times?

Source: UK Environment Agency Life Cycle Assessment (2011)

Local vs. Imported Food

Assumption: Local food = lower carbon footprint.

Reality: A tomato shipped from Spain to the UK produces less CO₂ than one grown in a heated British greenhouse.

Transport is often only 5-10% of food’s carbon footprint. Growing conditions matter more.

Source: Weber & Matthews (2008) Environmental Science & Technology; Poore & Nemecek (2018)

Electric Cars (Sometimes)

Assumption: Electric cars are always greener.

Reality: An EV charged on a coal-heavy grid (parts of China, Poland, India) can have comparable or higher lifecycle emissions than a fuel-efficient hybrid.

The car isn’t the whole story. The grid is.

Source: IEA Global EV Outlook (2023); Lifecycle assessments vary by region

Why Am I Telling You This?

Not to make you cynical.

Not to say “nothing matters.”

But to show you: the truth is complicated.

And complicated truths make better arguments.

The “Wait, What?” Technique

How to Crack Open Attention

The facts you just saw all share something:

They violate expectations.

Your brain can’t ignore information that contradicts what it “knows.”

This is your most powerful rhetorical tool.

The Formula

Common Assumption + Contradicting Fact + Source = “Wait, what?”

Once you have their attention, you can make your argument.

Without it, you’re just noise.

Examples for Your Presentations

Topic “Wait, What?” Opening
Fast fashion “Your ‘recycled’ H&M clothes are probably in a Ghanaian landfill right now.”
Sustainable fashion “The organic cotton dress used more water than the synthetic one.”
Veganism & climate “Almonds require 4x more water per gram of protein than chicken.”
Local food “That Kent tomato has a higher carbon footprint than one from Spain.”
Electric vehicles “Your Tesla might be dirtier than a Prius — depending where you charge it.”

Always include your source. “Wait, what?” only works if it’s true.

PRO-TIP: Use This Against Yourself

The strongest debaters acknowledge complexity on their own side.

PRO-CLIMATE: “Yes, organic cotton uses more water. That’s why we advocate for systemic change, not just material substitution.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT: “Yes, fast fashion has environmental costs. That’s why we push for innovation within the industry, not destruction of it.”

Acknowledging nuance makes you credible. Ignoring it makes you a propagandist.

A Challenge

What Comes Next Will Sound Dry

I’m about to show you a detailed case study on denim production.

It will include a lot of facts. Some of it will feel like a textbook.

But there’s a reason.

Your Task

As you listen, look for one key concept that anyone interested in fashion-related carbon emissions should walk away with:

Where do you draw the boundary?

I might do a small quiz before end of class.

Pay attention to what happens when you expand or contract the “system” you’re measuring.

Let’s start with fabric

denim, a quick case-study1.

Case Study: Environmental Impact of Denim Production

Impression: Denim is durable and promises to have a long lifespan and is therefore an environmental-friendly and ethical product, at least better than its leather counterparties.

  1. Water Usage:
    • The production of denim is water-intensive, especially during the cotton growing process and the dyeing phase where indigo dye is applied. It’s estimated that producing a single pair of jeans can require thousands of liters of water.
    • The “wash” effect, popular in many jeans, is achieved through various techniques such as stone washing or acid washing, which further increases water usage.
  1. Chemical Use:
    • The dyeing process for denim uses synthetic indigo dyes and other chemicals, which can be harmful to the environment if not properly managed. These chemicals can contaminate water sources, affecting aquatic life and potentially entering the human water supply.
    • Finishing processes to make jeans softer or to give them a distressed look also involve potentially harmful substances.
  2. Energy Consumption:
    • The entire lifecycle of a pair of jeans, from cotton cultivation to manufacturing processes, is energy-intensive, contributing to CO2 emissions and global warming.
  1. Cotton Cultivation:
    • Conventional cotton farming, the primary material for denim, uses large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers, which can degrade soil quality, contaminate water, and harm wildlife.
    • Cotton cultivation also competes for land and water resources that could be used for food production, exacerbating issues of resource scarcity.
  1. Lifecycle and Durability:
    • Although denim is often touted for its durability, the fast fashion trend towards lower quality and disposable clothing undermines this potential, leading to a shorter lifecycle and increased waste.
  2. Social and Ethical Concerns:
    • Beyond environmental impacts, the denim industry also faces ethical concerns related to labor practices in cotton farming and garment manufacturing, which are often conducted in developing countries under poor working conditions.

Responsible Denim Production

  1. Sustainable Cotton Challenges: Better Cotton Initiatives
    • Organic cotton avoids the pesticides and synthetic fertilizers requires a significant amount of water to grow.
    • Its water usage for organic cotton might be comparable to or even higher than conventionally grown cotton due to potentially lower yields.
    • Transition could be slow and costly, limiting its scalability and accessibility to all manufacturers.
  1. Eco-Friendly Dyes and Chemicals:
    • While eco-friendly dyes reduce the use of harmful chemicals, the dyeing process can still consume a considerable amount of water and energy.
    • Full life cycle impacts of some alternative dyes and chemicals are not always clear: they may still pose environmental risks if not managed properly.
  2. Recycled Materials:
    • Needs breaking down fabric: energy-intensive and chemicals to facilitate, possible environmental pollution.
    • The quality of recycled fibers can be lower than virgin fibers: possibly less durable, reduced lifespan thus higher frequencies of replacement.

Denim Reuse

  1. Transportation and Carbon Footprint:
    • The collection, sorting, and redistribution of used denim for reuse or recycling can entail significant transportation, contributing to carbon emissions, especially if these processes occur across global distances.
  2. Upcycling Limitations:
    • Upcycling, while creative and potentially reducing waste, may have limited scalability as a solution to denim waste. It can also be labor-intensive and may not always result in products that meet consumer needs or preferences, potentially leading to items that are ultimately discarded.
  1. Water and Energy Usage in Second-Hand Care:
    • The washing and maintenance of second-hand denim, especially to meet sanitary standards for resale, can consume significant amounts of water and energy, offsetting some of the environmental benefits of reuse.
  2. Market Saturation and Displacement:
    • An influx of second-hand or recycled denim products in certain markets can displace local textile industries, affecting economies and potentially leading to increased waste where these displaced products are not valued or utilized.

Upcycling: Use As-New Materials

Pros:

  • Reduces waste by repurposing textiles.
  • Conserves resources and minimizes the need for new materials.
  • Creates unique, creative fashion items.
  • Increases consumer awareness and promotes sustainable habits.

Cons:

  • Can be resource-intensive (transport, cleaning, modification).
  • Limited scalability due to the bespoke nature of products.
  • Potential market resistance due to perceived lower quality.
  • May involve the use of chemicals for transformation.

Downcycling: Use Degraded Materials

Pros:

  • Extends the life of materials by creating lower-quality products.
  • Generally less energy-intensive than new material production.
  • Cost-effective waste management strategy.
  • Capable of addressing large volumes of textile waste.

Cons:

  • Results in products with reduced quality and utility.
  • Still requires significant energy and resources for processing.
  • Workers may be exposed to hazardous materials.
  • Downcycled products may ultimately still contribute to landfill waste.

Comparing Pro-Climate and Pro-Development

Sustainable Fashion Benefits Potential Negative Environmental Impacts
Waste Reduction Energy and resource usages can be significant, possible offset of waste reduction benefits.
Resource Efficiency Scalability limited, may hinder overall impact on resource conservation.
Unique Products Bespoke nature of many sustainable fashion items leading to reduced desirability or quality, affecting market acceptance.
Awareness and Engagement Sustainable practices can rely on more resource-intensive methods (e.g., organic cotton farming requires significant water).
Sustainable Fashion Benefits Potential Negative Environmental Impacts
Extended Material Life Downcycled products, while reducing waste, often result in lower-quality items with shorter lifespan.
Energy Conservation Collection, transportation, and processing of materials for upcycling/downcycling still consume (more) energy.
Cost-Effectiveness The financial sustainability contested by higher production costs and consumer price sensitivity.
Volume Reduction Downcycling’s large-scale waste processing is offset by the end-life landfill risk due to lesser utility.

The Key Concept: System Boundaries

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

All those numbers you just saw depend on one crucial decision:

Where do you draw the boundary of what you’re measuring?

The Boundary Problem

Cradle-to-gate: Raw materials → Factory door

Cradle-to-grave: Raw materials → Consumer disposal

Cradle-to-cradle: Raw materials → Recycling → New product

Same product. Different boundaries. Completely different conclusions.

Remember the Ghana Statistic?

“40% of donated clothes end up in Ghanaian landfills.”

If your system boundary stops at “clothes donated” — recycling looks great.

If your system boundary extends to “where clothes actually end up” — you’re just exporting waste.

The boundary you choose determines the story you tell.

This Is Why Nuance Matters

  • Organic cotton looks good if you stop at pesticides. Looks worse if you include water usage.
  • Recycling looks good if you stop at the donation bin. Looks worse if you follow it to Africa.
  • Electric cars look good if you stop at tailpipe emissions. Depends on the grid if you include electricity source.

Anyone who gives you a simple answer is hiding their system boundary from you.

The Quiz Question

What is the single most important question to ask when someone tells you a product is “sustainable” or “green”?

Answer: “What system boundary are you using?”

Or more simply: “Sustainable compared to what, measured how, ending where?”

Now: This Week’s Battlefield

Two Sides. Two Views on Consumption.

PRO-CLIMATE

= Consume Less, Better

= “Fast fashion is a climate crime”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT

= Affordable Access

= “Fashion jobs lift millions from poverty”

The Core Tension

PRO-CLIMATE PRO-DEVELOPMENT
Reduce consumption Enable affordable clothing
Slow fashion movement Market-driven innovation
Regulation of industry Consumer choice
Environmental costs matter Jobs and livelihoods matter
Quality over quantity Accessibility for all

This tension defines every fashion sustainability debate.

Today’s Debate Motion

“Hong Kong should impose a mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility scheme on all fashion retailers by 2030.”

(EPR = brands must take back and recycle/dispose of products they sell)

PRO-CLIMATE argues for. PRO-DEVELOPMENT argues against.

Voices From the Battlefield

Real Words, Real Stakes

“Fast fashion isn’t free. Someone, somewhere is paying.”

Lucy Siegle, journalist and author of To Die For: Is Fashion Wearing Out the World? (2011)

“The most sustainable garment is the one already in your wardrobe.”

Orsola de Castro, co-founder of Fashion Revolution, Loved Clothes Last (2021)

“We are not asking brands to leave Bangladesh. We are asking them to stay — and pay fair wages.”

Kalpona Akter, garment worker turned labor activist, Executive Director of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (2019 interview, The Guardian)

The Other Side Speaks

“Fashion has always been about making beautiful things accessible. The question is how we do it responsibly.”

Karl-Johan Persson, former CEO of H&M, responding to sustainability criticism (2019)

“Telling poor people to buy less is not a climate strategy. It’s class warfare disguised as environmentalism.”

Pietra Rivoli, economist, author of The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy (2014 edition)

“When we closed one factory for violations, 3,000 workers lost their jobs. The activists celebrated. The workers didn’t.”

Rubana Huq, President of BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers Association), 2022

All quotes verifiable via Google Scholar, The Guardian, or named publications. This is how you build credibility.

The Hidden Price Tag

Your $15 H&M dress has a price tag.

It also has a shadow price — paid by someone else, somewhere else.

What $15 Doesn’t Cover

Water

2,700L per cotton t-shirt — enough drinking water for one person for 2.5 years

Carbon

Fashion = 10% of global emissions — more than aviation and shipping combined

Waste

One garbage truck of textiles landfilled or burned every second globally

Sources: WRAP; Ellen MacArthur Foundation; UN Environment Programme

Would You Rather?

The Wardrobe Dilemma

Scenario 1: A new policy requires all clothing sold in Hong Kong to display its full carbon footprint on the label. Your favourite $99 H&M dress now shows: “This garment produced 33kg of CO₂.” Your sustainable alternative costs $800.

Do you still buy the cheap dress?

Scenario 2: Closing all fast fashion factories in Bangladesh would eliminate 4 million jobs — mostly held by women who are their families’ sole earners. But those factories dump 22,000 tonnes of toxic waste into rivers annually.

Do you support the closure?

The Ethics Get Messy

PRO-CLIMATE says:

“Those 4 million jobs mean nothing if their children inherit a dead planet. We found alternatives to coal jobs. We can find alternatives here.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT says:

“Easy to demand factory closures from your air-conditioned campus. Fatima doesn’t have a Plan B. Neither do her three kids. Your ‘ethical choice’ is her eviction notice.”

Building Your Fashion Spectacle

The Formula (Reminder)

Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle

Weak

“Jeans use a lot of water”

Better

“One pair of jeans requires 7,500 liters of water”

Spectacle

“Your jeans drank more water than you will in 7 years. And you’ll throw them away in 18 months.”

PRO-CLIMATE: Make It Personal

Don’t say: “Fast fashion causes pollution.”

Say: “The river in Dhaka where they dye your $15 dress runs blue one day, red the next. Children play in that water. You wear their poisoned river.”

Don’t say: “We should buy less clothing.”

Say: “In 1960, the average American bought 25 garments a year. Now: 70. Your great-grandmother had one Sunday dress. You have a closet crisis.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT: Paint the Picture

Don’t say: “Fashion provides jobs.”

Say: “Fatima in Bangladesh earns $100 a month sewing clothes. It’s not much — but it’s more than her mother made as a farm laborer. She sends her daughter to school. Want to close the factory?”

Don’t say: “Sustainable fashion is expensive.”

Say: “A $200 organic cotton shirt is a ‘conscious choice’ for a HKU student. For a cleaner in Sham Shui Po, it’s a month’s food budget. Who gets to be ethical?”

Two Stories, One Industry

Reshma — Rana Plaza, 2013

Cracks appeared in the building. Engineer declared it unsafe. Bosses ordered workers back — or lose a month’s wages.

1,134 died. Reshma buried 17 days. Found alive.

“I heard voices for days, then they stopped.”

Labels in rubble: Primark, Benetton, Walmart.

Nasreen — Rangpur to Dhaka

Family were sharecroppers: $1-2/day. One meal during floods. At 16, factory job: $68/month.

First in family to own property. Sister finished school.

“My mother worked fields her whole life and owned nothing. I own a home.”

Now a line supervisor: $180/month.

Both stories are true. Both are the fashion industry.

Sources: BBC, Guardian, ILO, World Bank, Clean Clothes Campaign — all verifiable

Remember: Fact-Check Your Stories

✓ OK to Say

  • “One pair of jeans uses 7,500L of water” (Levi’s LCA data)
  • “Fashion is 10% of global emissions” (UN Environment)
  • “HK discards 110,000 tonnes of textiles/year” (EPD data)
  • “Rana Plaza killed 1,134 workers” (verified)

✗ NOT OK

  • “All fast fashion is unethical” (moral claim)
  • “Sustainable fashion saves the planet” (overstated)
  • “Boycotts always work” (depends on context)
  • “Consumers are responsible for everything” (too simple)

Now It’s Your Turn

Cheatsheet: 6 Questions Before You Debate

The Essential Six

  1. What’s your stake? Why does your role/sector care about this outcome? What do you stand to gain or lose?

  2. What’s your strongest evidence? What data, facts, or examples best support your position? Where might your evidence be weak?

  3. Who wins? Who loses? If your side prevails, who benefits most — and who pays the price?

  4. What would change your mind? What evidence or argument could genuinely shift your position?

  5. What will your opponents say? Anticipate their strongest counterargument. How will you respond?

  6. Where’s the common ground? Is there any compromise that both sides could accept?

Group Assignment Time!

Presentation Countdown

00:00

The Persuasion Playbook | Strategy #2

The Barnum Slide

“You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great need for others to like you. You have considerable unused capacity that you haven’t turned to your advantage.”

85% of people rate this as “highly accurate” for them.

It’s the same text for everyone.

The Science

This is the Barnum Effect (Forer, 1949).

Statements that feel specific but apply to almost everyone create false intimacy. Horoscopes, psychics, personality tests — all exploit this.

The trick: moderate specificity + universal anxiety.

People remember the hits, forget the misses.

You Just Saw It

When a speaker said something like:

“Some of you are thinking, ‘This doesn’t affect me.’ But you’re also wondering if you’re doing enough…”

Did it feel personal? It wasn’t. It was statistical.

But it worked.

Fashion Example: The Barnum Slide

Try this in your next presentation:

“You probably have clothes in your closet you haven’t worn in months. Maybe some still have the tags on. You tell yourself you’ll wear them eventually — but part of you knows you’re lying to yourself.”

This sounds personal. It applies to 90% of your audience.

That’s the Barnum Slide: universal truths disguised as personal insights.

Use it to create instant connection before your argument.

Next Week’s Challenge

Write one sentence that sounds personal but applies to everyone in the room.

Test it. Watch faces.

Appendix: Reference Material

Appendix A: Fashion Industry Impact — Detailed Data

Environmental Footprint

  • Water usage: Fashion consumes ~93 billion cubic meters of water annually (UNEP)
  • Chemical pollution: 20% of industrial water pollution comes from textile dyeing (World Bank)
  • Carbon emissions: 10% of global emissions, ~1.2 billion tonnes CO₂/year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation)

Resource Consumption

  • Synthetic fibers: 60% of clothing contains plastic (polyester, nylon, acrylic)
  • Cotton: 2.5% of global agricultural land, but 16% of insecticide use
  • Microplastics: 500,000 tonnes of microfibers enter oceans annually from washing

Waste and Landfill

  • One garbage truck of textiles landfilled/burned every second globally
  • Average garment worn 7-10 times before disposal (McKinsey)
  • Less than 1% of clothing recycled into new clothing (Ellen MacArthur)

Appendix B: Pro-Climate Arguments — Full Detail

Urgency in Fashion Reform

  • Resource Intensity: 700 gallons of water for one cotton shirt
  • Pollution: Dyeing and treatment chemicals contaminate waterways
  • Waste: 92 million tonnes of textile waste created annually

Sustainable Fashion Benefits

  • Waste Reduction: Circular models could reduce waste by 80%
  • Lower Emissions: Sustainable production can cut carbon by 50%+
  • Extended Use: Doubling garment lifespan cuts emissions 44%

Consumer Health & Ethics

  • Chemical Exposure: Conventional textiles contain formaldehyde, heavy metals
  • Fair Labor: Sustainable certifications require living wages
  • Transparency: Supply chain visibility enables accountability

Appendix C: Pro-Development Arguments — Full Detail

Economic Considerations

  • Employment: Fashion employs 75 million people globally, mostly women
  • Poverty Reduction: Garment work is entry point to formal economy
  • Cost Challenges: Sustainable fashion 50-400% more expensive

Questioning Effectiveness

  • Scale: Individual consumer choices have limited systemic impact
  • Greenwashing: Many “sustainable” claims lack verification
  • Priorities: Other sectors (energy, transport) have higher emissions

Innovation & Market Forces

  • Technology: New materials, recycling tech emerging rapidly
  • Market Demand: Consumer pressure driving brand changes
  • Investment: $50B+ invested in sustainable fashion startups

Appendix D: Life Cycle Assessment — Technical Detail

What is LCA?

Appendix D (cont.): LCA Models

Appendix D (cont.): LCA Technical Summary

LCA Stages

  1. Goal and Scope Definition: Purpose, system boundaries, functional unit
  2. Inventory Analysis: Energy inputs, material inputs, emissions, waste
  3. Impact Assessment: Climate change, water use, toxicity, land use
  4. Interpretation: Identify hotspots, compare alternatives, recommendations

Fashion LCA Considerations

  • System boundary: Cradle-to-gate vs cradle-to-grave vs cradle-to-cradle
  • Use phase: Consumer washing/drying often dominates energy use
  • End of life: Landfill, incineration, recycling, resale — very different impacts
  • Allocation: How to split impacts across co-products (e.g., cotton seeds)?

Appendix E: Denim Case Study — Full Technical Detail

Water Usage

  • One pair of jeans: 7,500-10,000 liters (cotton growing + dyeing + finishing)
  • “Wash” effects (stone washing, acid washing) add 20-50 liters per garment
  • Indigo dyeing requires multiple dip cycles

Chemical Use

  • Synthetic indigo dyes (historically natural, now 95%+ synthetic)
  • Finishing chemicals: softeners, anti-crease, water repellents
  • Sandblasting (now largely banned) caused silicosis in workers

Energy Consumption

  • Cotton cultivation: irrigation pumping, fertilizer production
  • Spinning, weaving, dyeing: energy-intensive industrial processes
  • Transport: Raw cotton → spinning → weaving → dyeing → cutting → sewing → retail

Recycling Challenges

  • Blended fibers (cotton-elastane) difficult to separate
  • Mechanical recycling shortens fibers, reduces quality
  • Chemical recycling exists but not yet at scale
  • Post-consumer denim often too degraded for fiber recovery

Appendix F: “Wait, What?” Facts — Full Sources

Claim Source
Beyond Burger ~3.5 kg CO₂e/kg Saget et al. (2021) Nature Food; Heller & Keoleian (2018)
Chicken ~4.5-6 kg CO₂e/kg Poore & Nemecek (2018) Science
Organic cotton 91% more water Mekonnen & Hoekstra (2011); varies by region
Cotton tote 131 uses UK Environment Agency (2011) LCA
40% donated clothes to landfill OR Foundation (2022); varies by destination
Fashion 10% of emissions UNEP (2019); Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Spanish vs UK tomatoes Weber & Matthews (2008); Garnett (2011)
EV emissions vary by grid IEA (2023); Lifecycle studies vary significantly

Note: Environmental data evolves. Always check for most recent LCA studies. Regional variations are significant.